and now...a first Sexyloops rods review !!

sms · Post by **sms** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:37 am

I've cast some of their DH rods, so not Magnus' new line of rods :-)

http://www.beulahflyrods.com/

Marc LaMouche · Post by **Marc LaMouche** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 10:17 am

Paul Arden wrote:Personally I think CCS is crap (but don't tell anyone :p)

:yeahhh:

Torsten · Post by **Torsten** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 2:16 pm

Hi Paul,

No it feels very different to a TCR - has more feel and better tip recovery. Personally I think CCS is crap (but don't tell anyone ),

Well, these variables are just objective measurements - the interpretation is another thing. The ERN/AA are good overall descriptions - in this case they describe a rod that has a higher stiffness than the average on the market and a "fast action" that means a softer tip, stiffer butt.

There is also something very important missing; that's the mass distribution. Very easy to measure, with a scale and the center of gravity for every part. I've proposed an simple average mass density graph and Grunde used that idea for the MOI.

So if there is a significant difference, we should easily find that and if the ERN/AA/mass distribution is not enough there is the BIG (bending index graph, CCS Part2, the big picture).

however Magnus' Beulah rod is very similar at 7.9 70. According to CCS that should be almost identical - that will certainly be an interesting test!

If the Beulah is tip heavy, it will feel very differently compared to your rod.

--

Feel is a very subjective thing, when I've cast T38 stuff for a while, every "normal" fly rod is like a limp noodle for me, including the TCR.

Have a nice day,
Torsten

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:13 pm

Unfortunately I don't have a decent set of scales, Torsten, but I'm pretty sure that Akos has such a piece of kit. I'll have a look to see if I can find a set.

http://www.sexyloops.com/articles/swingweight.shtml

How good or bad something feels is subjective, I agree. But some rods offer very little to feel in the first place.

Is internal damping significant in flyrods?

Cheers, Paul

_Ré · Post by **_Ré** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 4:53 pm

I would have calculated MOI already, but I don't have a scale the is precise enough for that. I am working on getting one.

Torsten · Post by **Torsten** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 7:38 pm

Hi Paul,

Is internal damping significant in flyrods?

Don Phillips has answered this question in his book:
(Don Phillips, "The Technology of Fly Rods", Frank Amato Publications 2000, page 89 ff. )

"[..] My damping tests of dozens of fly rods have shown that internal material damping is not very significant. Rods made of synthetic materials such as boron, graphite and fiberglass had damping factors of 0.020 to 0.031, while cane rods had damping factors of from 0.023 to 0.061. Although the difference in damping factors between cane and synthetic rods is indeed significant, all rod materials can be considered to have very low internal material friction or damping; only 2 to 6 percent of fully damped systems. The quick flex recovery of modern graphite rods is due to their tips' combination of high stiffness and light weight, and their minimum after-bounce is due to their low inertia (light weight). [..]"

The test rig for this variable is also pretty simple; the rod has to be clamped tightly, a test weight is attached, the tip is deflected, released and the number of oscillations is counted until the amplitude reaches 1/2 of the initial deflection.

--

A scale is a good investment for a fly fisher - measuring the weight of lines, nymphs, tungsten beads - really helpful.
Just look for a "pocket scale" on ebay - have seen one for 6 gbp and don't forget a calibration weight, also not expensive.

Bye,
Torsten

Paul Arden · Post by **Paul Arden** » Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:50 pm

Thanks, Torsten. I'm sure if I start carrying a pocket scale around they'll never let me back into the US! I'll be able to buy one in Malaysia in a couple of weeks.

and their minimum after-bounce is due to their low inertia (light weight).

I think that there must be more to it than this. When we stiffened up a mid section the result was less tip oscillations.

Cheers, Paul

Merlin · Post by **Merlin** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:44 am

Hmmm, butt mid?

Welcome to the strange world of stability

Merlin

Zoran · Post by **Zoran** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 10:36 am

All that technical measurements and judgments represent only 49% of rod performances .

The rest of 51% belongs to out-comings from achieved bond between Caster (suppose to be live thing ) and rod (suppose to be not exactly alive) .

Once the rod wake up from The World of Death (things?) , loops become alive as well , getting on the stage of system energy exchange .
And Hop -Miracle - all these separate things become combo , exchanging the energy on the same frequency levels .

In the best case scenario, very good caster and very well matched rod for him -become ONE thing ,producing alive , kicking loops .

Now tell me is now that combo alive or dead thing ???

More ,does The Caster has right if he says :"This rod has a soul , fuck the CCS's and mesurements "

So, I think rod has a soul ,which is pretending to be dead before interaction with Caster , and before it becomes one nice and alive part of the combo .
With the soul .

Such a Rod soul cannot be measured , the other part of combo have to FEEL it - like a combo feeling

One day , when scientists find a way to measure the feel and the soul, you will say: " Fuck, Zoran was damn right , he said that 345 years ago ! :p " :laugh:

But , it was not me , people said that 10.000 years a go , that everything has a soul, but it seems we forgot on it .... ...just a little bit .

Marry Christmas and Happy New Year , the life has a beautiful soul !

disclaimer :
btw, I am not African Sangoma or Serbian Witcher neither (as you might think reading this fairytail story for Good Night") :closedeyes: , but bloody M. Sc. in Chemical Engineering by education .

In total 49% of stupid Eng. and 51% of vintage and rebel and still curious Soul :laugh:

[

_Ré · Post by **_Ré** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 5:24 pm

The overall weight of the rod is 98 grams. The aluminum spacers we use weigh 23 grams, the original REC wood spacers 14 grams. So if you compare the overall weight to those of other rods with wood spacers you should count with 89 grams for a fair comparison. Not to mention if we would use some ugly carbon inlets. :glare: The weights stated are also real. :p

Marc LaMouche · Post by **Marc LaMouche** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 6:28 pm

Zoran for President !!!

Viking Lars · Post by **Viking Lars** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:06 pm

Zoran for Emperor, I say :-)

Lars

Marc LaMouche · Post by **Marc LaMouche** » Tue Dec 25, 2012 7:19 pm

President's better cause we can kick him out if he fucks up... :laugh:

fishingthefly · Post by **fishingthefly** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:53 pm

My PB distance with a #5 and #7 has been steadily improving with the GT125 line

I was out for a few casts with Ben today and finally got a chance to play with my new Sexyloops rod. Great fun, I like the Competitor rod very much and I even managed to add a few more inches to my PB #5 at 103 ft and 6 inches

Best wishes
MIke

Marc LaMouche · Post by **Marc LaMouche** » Thu Jan 03, 2013 6:24 pm

The Archived Board

The Archived Board

and now...a first Sexyloops rods review !!

Who is online